Beyond the ‘tick-box’: Redesigning a course review process that fosters dialogue and exchange of ideas

Quality enhancement processes nurture academic programmes including medicine; however, educator engagement with these processes can be variable. Educators may view these processes as a ‘tick-box’ activity that competes with teaching and research time. When educators engage more deeply with quality enhancement, and structural elements support collaboration, a quality culture is fostered.¹

Our institution requires educators submit a course report every 3 years. Educators synthesise information that evaluates the quality of their learning environment, identify areas for improvement and outlined strategies for enhancing learning. Information sources can include students, teachers, course documents and assessment results. Historically, up to 10 educators submitted their respective reports to one end of year curriculum committee meeting dedicated to quality enhancement. The committee chair would attempt to facilitate the discussion about all submitted reports by inviting committee members, including student representatives and other educators, to ask questions and provide comments. However, this large volume of content in one single meeting often resulted in superficial discussion with little input from students or other educators.

Here, we report on redesigning an established course review process to encourage dialogue and the exchange of ideas among educators, students, and programme leaders.

The process was evaluated by reviewing meeting minutes before and after these changes were made. Evaluation data also included a voluntary anonymous survey completed by curriculum committee members including student education reps after the second year of the new process.

Content analysis of the meeting minutes shows that limiting discussions to two reports per meeting allows for more in-depth discussion of teaching and learning practices. More time is spent reflecting on successes and challenges, fostering shared learning, and actionable improvements. Students have gained a voice in the process and having a facilitator from another course increases educator engagement.

Survey results indicated educators and students value the redesigned process. Educators appreciate time for dialogue, learning from peers and being part of a group of academic educators. Students appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way. While educators value student input, some suggest allowing students to comment on challenges or less positive aspects for a balanced conversation. Additionally, some educators feel there is now not enough time to discuss other meeting agenda items, so balancing report discussions with other meeting business remains a consideration for future improvements.

Making small but meaningful changes to an established quality enhancement process has nurtured a quality culture in our institution. The increased dialogue and exchange of ideas among educators, students, and programme leaders has transformed what was once perceived by some as a ‘tick box’ activity into a more meaningful and valued discussion about how to improve the learning environment for our students.

Louise Beckingsale: Conceptualization; writing—review and editing; writing—original draft. Anthony Ali: Writing—review and editing. Lutz Beckert: Conceptualization; writing—review and editing.

None of the authors have a conflict of interest to disclose.